On Mon, 8 May 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:56:03PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't buy it :-). This syntax is similar to a special case of the syntax
> > > of jot(1). It's better to use jot(1) directly, e.g.:
> > >
> > > MAKEDEV $(jot -
On Tue, 09 May 2000 10:26:05 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> I don't agree. I think this is an issue of avoiding changes that
> unnecessarily astonish existing users. If you can find ways to improve
> MAKEDEV that don't inconvenience those already familiar with it, great.
> If your improvements
On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:56:03 -0400, "Jeroen C. van Gelderen" wrote:
> Now it's a question of "the UNIX way" vs. convenience/userfriendlyness
> :-)
I don't agree. I think this is an issue of avoiding changes that
unnecessarily astonish existing users. If you can find ways to improve
MAKEDEV t
On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 06:56:03PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> >
> > I don't buy it :-). This syntax is similar to a special case of the syntax
> > of jot(1). It's better to use jot(1) directly, e.g.:
> >
> > MAKEDEV $(jot -w da 2 0)# make 2 acd devices beginning at acd0
b$
Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> > > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
> > > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
> > > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
> > > which would a
On Mon, 8 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
> > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
> > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
> > which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKED
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes:
> >On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> >> Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
> >> MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
> >> MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
> >>
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> > Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
> > MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
> > MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
> > which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKEDEV 256 pty"
>
> I
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes:
>On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
>> Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
>> MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
>> MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
>> which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" a
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote:
> Or just settle for a more intuitive solution:
> MAKEDEV acd2 creates /dev/acd2
> MAKEDEV 2 acd creates /dev/acd[01]
> which would allow for "MAKEDEV 64 da" and "MAKEDEV 256 pty"
I agree with this syntax and after send
[CC culled, -stable removed]
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 04:59:46PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> > Can we settle this once and for all in a slightly sane manner?
> >
> > I committed the change so that MAKEDEV acd1 creates acd1 and not just
> > acd0.
>
> Thi
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 04:59:46PM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> Can we settle this once and for all in a slightly sane manner?
>
> I committed the change so that MAKEDEV acd1 creates acd1 and not just
> acd0.
This is wrong. ``MAKEDEV acd2'' should either create only /dev/acd2*,
-On [2506 21:55], Bruce Evans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Sat, 6 May 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
>> I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to
>> incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and
>> 5.0-CURRENT. With this messa
Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> > I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to
> > incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and
> > 5.0-CURRENT. With this message I'm attaching short patch which sh
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to
> incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and
> 5.0-CURRENT. With this message I'm attaching short patch which should solve
> this little prob
-On [2506 10:40], Maxim Sobolev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>- while [ $i -lt $units ]; do
>+ while [ $i -le $units ]; do
Tested and committed to both CURRENT and 4-STABLE.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Network- and systemadministrator
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I've just noticed that "sh MAKEDEV acd1" doesn't produce node for acd1 due to
incorrect comparasion in the "while" loop. This affecting both 4.0-STABLE and
5.0-CURRENT. With this message I'm attaching short patch which should solve
this little problem.
-Maxim
--- MAKEDEV 2000/05/06 08:
17 matches
Mail list logo